David Gold is surprised that freepers are supporting FDR/LBJ-scale Katrina spending

8-10 PM Central. Weekdays. wbap.com

1-4 PM Pacific Sats and Suns. ksfo.com

Both shows are done from North Texas. Both are labors of love.

I also love this place. It's OK to disagree on this. I understand both sides aruments. Just don't lose sight of what are core values are. A hurricane shouldn't wipe those away. That, by the way, is compassionate. Growing government and building dependence is not. The Libs say the hurricane exposed America to the poor. No. It exposed America to the failure of the Welfare State.

A more honest study, one which say, came up with a figure of even 200,000 per person, would be more honest, and would still make the same point without being disingenuous. While I dont have a real problem with the plans for NO, I can see the other side, quite clearly, I do have my libertarian roots. I believe that if there IS a "reason" for a federal government, something like this would surely fall under it (like defense, and certain infrastructure costs). Its just an opinion, and I can see the other side, thats why I know you guys aren't evil or anything, thats why I'm civil about it.

At this point, its going to be a "hope for the best" situation, hope that it can be done with a minumum of waste and corruption (yeah, right...)..

You are talking accounting when I am talking economics.

While an item (house, car, carpets, whatever) may be fully depreciated in the accounting sense, they still have value in the economic sense, in that the owner does not have to pay for a replacement while it is still usable. Usable is a subjective term, that's why it cannot be an accounting rule but it is an economic concept.

If I have to buy a new car to replace what was destroyed, it takes current and future dollars out of my pocket that I might have used to buy a second home, saved for college expenses, or some other use that will now not occur. As in my example, what I spend on the new car is then not spent on something else. I understand your point about everything being replaced will be of higher value because of its newness; however, that is probably not true either. Do you think that the old Southern houses destroyed will be replaced by houses of equal charm and historical value, for example ? Again, what may be true in accounting does not hold true in economics.

Bank loans are not created from thin air - they are someone's saved dollars not used for another purpose. They belong to the shareholders of the bank, who have elected to invest in the bank for the purpose of increasing their saved dollars. Only the government, which can print paper money, or the discoverer/creator of a material or new product, can claim to create value that did not exist before then.

Jobs do not benefit people; it is the goods and services created by those jobs which benefit individuals and by extension, their society.

You seriously need to do some reading on economics. It is not accounting. Start with "Economics In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It's relatively short, eminently understandable, and right to the point.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.